Dear Sir,
An interesting article on definite atonement in the March EN. This doctrine has been presented to me many times over the years, and it seems that a case can be made both for it and against it. Of course only those who are the elect will be saved, but I prefer Spurgeon’s illustration rather than spending more time on a subject that can be neither proved nor disproved. He saw the sign over the gates of heaven with writing on both sides – those outside read ‘whosoever will may come’, while those inside read the inscription ‘these are the elect’. That’s how it will end up, so is it worth spending time trying to work out that which cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone?
If it is true, what are we to make of 1 John 2.2, which tells us that ‘he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world’. And when Jesus said that he wanted to gather the people of Jerusalem ‘as a mother hen gathers her chicks, but you would not’, then either they were not part of the elect, or they were using their free will to thwart the purposes of God – which means that God is not omnipotent. The end result is the same. If Christ indeed knew in advance those that would receive him and died for them alone, then we have countless people for whom the invitation in Revelation is not only pointless, but also extremely cruel: ‘Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life’. He would be holding out hope of rescue which he has no intention of fulfilling.
This doctrine raises more questions than it solves; what is the point of preaching the gospel to every creature if the elect are going to be saved anyway? We must also say goodbye to free will, because if we are foreordained to be saved then it will happen whether we want it or not. I think that we must hold predestination and man’s free choice in tension, knowing they are both true while admitting that we are unable to put them together with our very limited knowledge.
God loved the world, not just the elect, and he wants all men to be saved as stated in Scripture. I see Christ’s death as sufficient for all, available to all and free to all, but it must be appropriated with an act of the will. To draw a parallel, consider if a cure for AIDS was discovered, and a sufficient quantity made available and delivered to every country in the world. If many didn’t bother to collect it, would that make the supply and the gift any less universal? Would the supplier be at fault, and the people be given no responsibility for their lack of action?
In the Middle Ages, theologians spent much time debating how many angels could balance on the point of a needle. It seems to me that this question has the same relevance to daily living and Christian witness as did theirs.
Yours faithfully,
